Loading...
PC Min 11/20/1979PLANfdING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFOP.NIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.P1. MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1979 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day: in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 75-North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Campos, Vierhus, Kasolas (7:55), Chairman Samuelson; Principal Present Planner Philip Stafford, Planner II Richard Schneider, Engineering h1anager Bill He1ms,~Acting City Attorney Brian Duckworth, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent APPROVAL OF MIfvUTES COf~1I'1UN I CAT IONS Commissioner Pack;, Planning Director Arthur A. Kee. Commissioner Dickson moved that the 'minutes of the regular meeting of November 5, 1979 be approved as. submitted, seconded by Commissioner Campos, and unanimously adopted. ~1r. Stafford informed the Commission that a letter had been received from fair. Ual Afanasiev, 1054 Steinway Avenue, requesting the Commission's clari- fication of a recent .approval fora second story addition'at 1050 Steinway Avenue. Mr. Afanasiev's letter, dated November 14, 1979 is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. f~1r. Stafford stated that other communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Chairman Samuelson, in reference to h1r. Afanasiev's letter, stated that he did not recall any discussion of -vindov!s~when the application for 1050 Steinway Avenue vas before the Commission. P1r. Stafford stated that the Commission had approved the side-yard setback adjustment for a second story addition to a residence at 1050 Steinway, but did not include the neighbor's (Mr. Afanasiev) request that there be no windows facing his property. It was noted that the pla~~s that were presented at the October 2, 1979 meeting shoved windows on the side yard elevations. Commissioner Dickson stated that it has been the Commission's policy to approve setbacks at 5 or 6 feet, but he did net recall when the Commission had ever taken the location of windov:s into consideration for approval. P9r. Val Afanasiev, lOr~? Steinway ;'-,ven:~~ry appeared before the Commission to explain his re~aue~t for clarification on .he Commission's approval. It was his desire to know if the Commission had intentionally omitted his request that no windows face his pros{cyrty, or if it was an oversight. He further stated that his family's privacy would be greatly endangered if the windows were allowed to re~ra i n. i F,~ Santa C1 anal Realty Board has i ndi cated to hi m that the value of hi s property LS i'! 1 be reduced. -2- Chairman Samuel son stated that pee~haps -this d~;as a problem that shout d be wor!<ed out with the builder, rather than asking the Planning Commission to intervene. Commissioner Campos added that it had been his understanding that the variance had been granted with t!~e request that no ~vindows face Per. Afanasiev's property. ;~:-, P9r. Stafford explained that staff is recommending a standard approval, reaffirming the approval of October 2, 1879, because a;tho!:gh one corner of the building is within the side yard setback area and is 7' rather than. 9` from the property 1 i ne, the bui 1 di ng i s at ar, angl e such that t'i~ ~,f~ ndo~~;s are 8-1 /?_' and 11-1 /2' from the property line. Staff is of the e?ini:~r~ that the second w;indo~~; conforms to the code requirements and the first ~vindow, which is E" too close to the property 1 i ne, shout d not create an undue 'r;ardshi p fo•r h1r. Afanasiev. Commissioner Kasolas entered the Council Chambers at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Dickson expressed sympathy for ~~9r. Afanasiev; he felt, however, the Commission should not get into the design of loti~; density residential homes. He did not feel the Commission should change the previous approval, and suggested h1r. Afanasiev go to his neighbor regarding this matter. f~~oti on Commissioner Dickson moved that the Planning Commission reaffirm the previous approval without the requested requirement of no ~aindows on the side yard elevation. Commissioner Pleyer seconded the motion. Discussion Commissioner Campos stated he u;ould vote against the motion, since he felt the applicant had a valid complaint. Vote on P1oti on AYES: Commissioners: PJOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: t•1otion carried. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS f~~teyer, Dickson, Vierhus, Kasolas Campos, Samuelson Pack S 79-~1 Application of qtr. Sanford Getreu for approval of Getreu, S. plans to construct an addition to an existing commercial structure on property known as 1575 S. 4Jinchester Boulevard in a prezoned C-1-S (PJeighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Vierhus reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with particular emphasis on Condition No. 1 regard- ing revised site plans. -3- Commissioner Dickson inquired about the parking ratio for the development, what the addition was going to be used for, and the possible problems with the driveway ingress/egress on Winchester Boulevard. P1r. Stafford stated the parking ratio was 1:200 square feet of gross floor area on the. original plans; however the elimination of one space would result in a parking ratio of 1:203 square feet, and staff is recommending approval. He further indicated the building use is believed to be speculative. Engineering Manager Helms reported that the Public t~lorks Department was satisfied aaith the plans. He explained that this project would include setting the curb bacl: and will result in an additional lane on tinchester Boulevard. Commissioner Dickson inquired if there had been any discussion regarding changing the driveway to Rosemary Lane. Mr. Stafford replied there had not been. Commissioner Vierhus moved, and Commissioner Pleyer seconded, that S 79-41 be approved subject to the conditions listed as attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. The motion carried w,rith a vote of 5-1-1 with Commissioner Dickson voting "No". _ **~ S 79-42 Application of Mr. l~Jarren Jacobsen for approval of Jacobsen, 6J. plans to construct a professional office building on property known as 60 6~lest Campbell Avenue in a P-0 (Professional Office) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas stated that this application had been revie~~~ed by the Site and Architectural Reviet-r Committee, and the Committee is recommending approval, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Vierhus, that S 79-42 be approved subject to the conditions listed as attached hereto .and made a part of these minutes. The motion carried unanimously. *** SA 79-7 Continued appeal by Charles and Margaret Pignataro -- Pignataro, C. of a decision of the Planning Director which denied an application fer a 5-foot by 18-foot sign on the rear of a building located on property kno~~an as 2~7 E. Campbell Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. P1r. Stafford revie~Jred the appeal, stating that it has been continued several times since'I~larch 6, 1979, because of a possible sign "theme" for the down- town area. Anew sign ordinance, which the Commission recommended for approval, specifies a maxim~~am of 50 square feet for signs. It is staff's _,~._ opinion that a 50 square foot sign vrould be adequate to identify this business; and, therefore staff is recommending denial of this appeal. Commissioner Campos questioned staff's second recommendation of a conditional approval. . Plr. Schneider stated that staff's second recommendation that the applicant sign a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that they will replace the sign with one that conforms to a sign theme for the dourntoarn area once such a theme is established, was a result of previous interest on the part of the Commission that a "theme" be established for the doUrntown area. Commissioner Kasolas felt it should be noted that the sign is currently in existence, and he felt that the sign was necessitated by the "loop" street. He expressed his approval of staff`s second recommendation for a conditional approval. ~1r. Stafford explained to the Commission that the sign was originally painted on the building Urithout a permit, and that it was brought to staff's attention as a violation of the sign ordinance. Commissioner Kasolas thought it was important to note that there eras only one sign and it is to .the rear of the building, and that the sign was hard to see even with the present size. He stated the words "Pignataro Shoe Repair do not encompass 90 square feet, but that the surrounding area painted white made the sign a total of 90 square feet. E!e suggested cutting do~•rn the size cf the sign by painting out the white. P•1r. Schneider indicated that normally the painted area around the lettering is considered as part of the total sign area. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt it was important that the Commission address itself to this issue so that it has abetter understanding as to the problems of signir~g in the downtown area. f-!is opinion is that staff's second recommendation of conditional approval be accepted, along vaith a specified time period for corhpliance. Commissioner Campos stated that tl~ere had beer. quite a bit of discussion in the past regarding a "theme" for t~,e downto~rn area, and that the Commission has been 4aaiting a long time for such a "theme". He was concerned that by approving this appeal, the Commission might be setting a precedent for other businesses in the area to proceed without a "theme", and the possible "theme" for signing was the primary reason that this matter had been continued for so long. Mr. Schneider stated that the second recommendation of conditional approval had been included as a compromise. The new Sign Ordinance states that signs should not be any larger than 50 square feet; ho~~rever, the Planning Commission has the power to approve larger signs if hardship is found. It is staff's opinion that such a hardship does not exist in this instance. Staff feels. that the existing sign is too large, but recognizes the Commission's interest in developing a "theme" for the downtown area. -5- Commissioner Vierhus questioned how one could determine if a sign is necessary for a business. He did not feel a staff member could pass judgment on whether a sign is needed. He again stated the difficulty of the "loop" street, and felt that anything the Commission could do to improve the identification of these businesses should be done. . Commissioner Dickson stated that he felt a hardship was not demonstrated in this case. Commissioner Dickson moved, and Commissioner f•9eyer seconded, that SA 79-7 be denied. The motion carried with a vote of 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Kasolas abstaining), and Commissioner Vierhus noting "No'°. *** SA 79-62 Appeal of The Factory of a decision of the Planning The Factory Director which denied an application for a reader. board type sign to be located on property known as 93 S. Central Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee had reviewed this appeal in detail. The recommendation of the Committee is that the appeal be approved ~vith the elimination of Condition B (elimination of "The Factory" identification from the sign), but subject to Condition A (reduction of sign size to 50 square feet maximum) and Condition C (message display to be for entertainment or special events only). The Committee felt the words "The Factory''-aere necessary for the reader board sign, and that this leas no different than theater signs that have been allowed. Chairman Samuelson inquired if there might be an enforcement problem with insuring that only entertainment or special events be posted on the reader board. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant has assured the Commission that this problem will be taken care of from a management point of view. The reader board won't be used for tenant advertising because of possible conflicts betv~een tenants. P•9r. Stafford stated his agreement with Commissioner Kasolas, indicating that -- there are other reader board type signs in other shopping centers and there has been no problem. Commissioner h1eyer questioned the height of the sign. fir. Stafford stated that the sign is not free-standing, but Grill be attached to the corner facade of 'the Factory and ~=ii 17 be visible to eastbound traffic on Orchard City Drive. A brief discussion ensued concerning differences between entertainment and special events, as well as other reader board type signing in the area. -~;._ T1otion Commissioner Kasolas moved, and Commissioner Vierhus seconded, that SA 79-62 be approved, per letter of October 26, 1979 (attached hereto and made a part of these minutes) ~~rith the elimination of Condition B as listed i•n the Staff Comment Sheet. Discussion Commissioner Campos felt that The Factory was already adequately identified, and that Condition B should remain if SA 79-62 is approved. Amendment to Plotion Commissioner Dickson moved to amend the motion to incorporate Condition B, seconded by Commissioner Campos. Discussion of Amendment to Plotion Commissioner Dickson felt that the water tower adequately identified The Factory. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the water tower is not part of The Factory and that the l-cater District is free to paint the to-ver any color they choose. He felt "The Factory" was part of identification necessary for a community need. Commissioner Vierhus stated that he felt the Commission should do everything it could to help this developmentkget off the ground. Commissioner Campos felt that the development already had enough identification with or without the alater to~ver, and he would hate to see the center cluttered up with signs. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the project is dealing with people from other areas who are not familiar arith Campbell, and that they need identification of the center, F1r. Jim Lyle, representing The Factory, appeared before the Commission. P1r. Lyle stated that the existing signing on The Factory vas established when the traffic pattern was entirely different than noEV. It ~ti~as his opinion that the one large sign facing east is entirely useless, He indicated that the closing of Central Avenue has imposed a definite problem in locating The Factory. He felt that the words "The Factory" were extremely important, and urged that they be included in this sign. Commissioner Dici<son noted that the Sign Ordinance states that signs should be used for "identification purposes" only. He questioned if the proposed sign is an identification sign or a reader. board sign. If it is an identification sign then it is too large, if it is a reader board sign then "The Factory" should be taken off. He stated that the argument for adequate identification is an argu- ment that everyone on the "loop" street can use to come before the Commission for special consideration on signing. -7- Mr. Schneider briefly reviewed the history of this sign application. He stated that it has been the policy of the City to not approve reader board signs, except marquees,and that the appeal application of The Factory clarified the proposed use of the reader board indicating that it would be used to announce special events and entertainment events only. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt the wording "The Factory" for an establishment of its size was not that earth shattering, and he stressed an affirmative stand. Commissioner Pleyer inquired about signing on The 6odega, which is located across the street from The Factory.. She asked if the wording "The Bodega" appeared on their marquee sign. 1'•ir. Schneider stated he believed that it did not. Vote on Amendment to h1otion Chairman Samuelson called fora rote on the amendment to the motion, incor- porating Condition B. AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Vierhus, Kasolas, Samuelson ABSE1`dT: Commi ssi oners: Paclc The amendment failed with a vote of 3-3-1. Vote on ~1ain Motion AYES: Commissioners: Vierhus, Kasolas, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Campos ABSEP~IT: Commissioners: Pack The motion failed with a vote of 3-3-1. Ploti on Commissioner Kasolas moved, and Commissioner Dickson seconded, that SA 79-62 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 1979 in order that it might be reviewed by a full Commission. The motion for continuance eras adopted unanimously. Ili cri~cci nn Commissioner Dickson requested that staff repare a full review of signing for The Factory, to be presented to the Commission at the December 4 meeting. Commissioner Campos requested drawings or photos of the signing from different elevations. *** -8- The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. SA 79-63 Appeal of P+Ir. Diedericke Bosau and Ken's Office Machines Ken's Office of a decision of the Planning Director which required Fachines removal of "IBM Rentals" signs, removal of "Graphics" signs,and removal of the roof-mounted sign on property known as 530 E. Campbell Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant this morning. He noted that the building in question has 39 feet of frontage on Campbell Avenue, with six signs on the building and six window signs. It should be noted by the Commission that one sign approved by staff was 5'x12'. The Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending reduction of the previously approved sign to 5'x10', and denial of the rest of the appeal. Commissioner Kasolas also recommended that the discussion of this item be limited to Ken's Office Pachines as much as possible. The applicant is claiming uniqueness and hardship. P1r. Diedericke Bosau, applicant, appeared before the Commission to state that he was willing to take off two signs. The signs had been repainted not knowing a permit was needed, and graphic signs were added which v;c are willing to take off. He further stated that the roof-mounted sign was on the building when he obtained occupancy and that nothing has been done to it (it has been on the roof for 16 years), and he felt it was necessary for identification of the business for persons coming around the "loop". Chairman Samuelson inquired if the roof-mounted sign had been repainted. Mr. Bosau replied that it had not been repainted. He had only repainted the signs on the building, and added graphics. He stressed his willingness to remove the graphics. Pir. Del Grande, 566 E. Campbell Avenue, and landlord of Ken's Office Machines, appeared before the Commission to give further information regarding the roof- mounted sign. He stated that the framework of the sign belongs to his building, and that the plastic insert belongs to Ken's Office Machines. He further stated that the sign has been there a long time and he did not understand the policy that a sign becomes obsolete when the ordinance is changed. Mr. Del Grande stated he did not understand the part of the ordinance that requires a permit for repainting signs. He felt the statement that Mr. Bosau had added 2/3 more signs was incorrect, that he had added graphics which he felt were different. He expressed his opinion that Ken's Office Pachines needs all the signs it can get. Chairman Samuelson asked Mr. Stafford to explain the ordinance regarding repainting of signs. Mr. Stafford reviewed the sign ordinance section in question, stating that this section has been in the ordinance since 1973 and has been enforced by the Planning Department staff on several occasions. He also reviewed the section concerning non-conforming signs requiring that non-conforming signs be removed within three years of the adoption of the ordinance (and the ordinance has been in effect for some time). He stated the City has an -9- inventory of non-conforming signs in the City, however staff has not had the manpower necessary to start a blanket policing of these signs due to the number, but as these signs come before the staff for changes, action is being taken to bring them into conror•~~~ance. Mr. Stafford called the Commission's attention to the recent application of Bruener's regarding the roof-mounted sign. The City Council took action to uphold staff's recommendation for removal of these signs. Mr. Del Grande again stressed the need for signing for this business because of the "loop" street, and stated he did not want to see this corner looking like the corner on the block to the west (the building is .deserted). h1r. Bosau felt that the City could have told him about non-conforming signs when he applied for his business license; thus saving him his expenditure for the name Yen's Office Plachines. Commissioner Dickson suggested amortization of the sign. He then asked staff how this application came before the Commission. Mr. Schneider replied that the building and all the signs on the building had been repainted. As a result of code enforcement action, the applicant applied for a permit for the signs. The two plywood signs were. approved and everything else was denied. Commissioner Dickson explained to R1r. Bosau that the City's way of enforcing the codes regarding signing was to try to set things straight according to code when a change is being made. t1r. Bosau felt that the reason the original owner sold was because of the decrease in business due to the "loop" street. He felt that the roof-mounted sign was needed because of the positioning of the telephone poles on that corner, and because of the "loop" street. Commissioner Vierhus stated that he felt strongly that the City Council should make a detrmination on this matter. Commissioner Dickson stated that based on this evening's discussion and the fact that the applicant does have a way of amortization for the sign, he would move for denial of this appeal. Commissioner Dickson moved, and Commissioner Meyer seconded, that SA 79-63 be denied. hlotion carried unanimously. Mr. Stafford then explained the appeal process to the applicant. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 79-9 Continued public hearing to consider the application. Vierra, H. of Mr. Howard L. Vierra for approval of plans, ele- vations, and development schedule to allow construction of 10 condominium units on property known as 51 & 55 Dot Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/h1edium Density Residential) Zoning District. -10- Commissioner Kasolas reported that. the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending approval of this application. He further stated that the Site and Architectural Review Committee expressed their willingness to review any landscape plans, as was done with the development on the adjacent property. The Committee is willing to have Condition No. 2 revised to state that "landscape plans to be reviewed by Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permit", if the Co~r~nission sees fit. Chairman Samuelson felt that this project contained a high percentage of paved area, and asked if this had been discussed at this morning's Committee meeting. Commissioner Kasolas responded that the paved area is ~~iithin 5 percent or less of the average. He added that there had been discussion at this morning's meeting regarding reduction of the amount of asphalt and increasing the amount of landscaping on future developments in the City. Chairman Samuelson declared the public hearing open, and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Jim Eller, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Commission to review the project and to answer any questions the Commission might have. Plo one else wishing to be heard, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas and seconded by Commissioner Meyer that the public hearing be closed. The motion was adopted unanimously. RESOLUTIOPd N0. 1844 Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution "Jo. 1844 recommending approval of the application of P1r. Howard L. Vierra for approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow construction of 10 condominium units on property known as 51 & 55 Dot Avenue in a P-D {Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet t~iith modification of Condition No. 2 to read "landscape plans to be reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee prior to issuance of building permit Motion seconded by Commissioner t~9eyer, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Campos, Vierhus, Kasolas, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: PJone ABSENT: Commissioners: Pact: ~~* UP 79-27 Continued public hearing to consider the application of hartinez, M. ~-1r. Hlichael Martinez for a use permit and approval of plans to allow a water slide facility on property known as 2885 S. Jv'inchester Boulevard in an Interim (Commercial) Zoning District. -11- Commissioner Kaso1as reported that the applicant did not meet with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning; however he believed that changes have been made by the apr~licant that answer the concerns of the Committee and the neighbors. Chairman Samuelson stated that the key change is in the height of the starting platform. Pir. Stafford explained that the applicant has indicated in revised plans that the starting platform would be 12 feet above grade and the splash down area would be 12 feet belovr grade. The plans also indicated the addition of a sound vaall along the north, west, and south property lines, as suggested by a sound study done for the project. Chairman Samuelson stated that the fencing around this project has caused some real concerns in the past, and asked if any improvements were planned. P1r. Stafford suggested the Commission address the applicant regarding fencing. Commissioner Campos questioned the ingress/egress of traffic onto l~Jinchester Boulevard. He asked the turn-around time for people using the facility. 1~1r. Stafford stated that at the last meeting it was indicated that the slide vaould attract more adults vrith children, than the current use, and that they ~-~oul d stay 1 onger. Commissioner Dickson inquired if this proposed development was v~ithin the standards of the PJoise Element of the General Plan. Per. Stafford responded that the sound study for the project speaks to our noise element. The study indicates that most of-the noise at this time comes from 6~linchester Boulevard with 51 decibels and noise of the facility is 6 decibels above that vrhich would normally not cause problems for people in the area. Commissioner Campos asked if this type of use was compatible with the area. t~tr. Stafford stated that it was staff's position that the slide, being an outdoor recreational facility, would be very similar to the skateboard park. In the CN Zone (prior to establishment of Interim Zone) recreational facilities vaere allowed. Commissioner P~1eyer asked v:hich areas of the site would be landscaped. F'r. Stafford stated that staff is recommending the entire site be landscaped except under the slide. f~1r. Stafford stated that staff is recommending the entire site be landscaped except under the slide. Chairman Samuelson declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speal; for or against this item. -1 c- Mr. Mike Martinez, applicant, appeared before the Commission. He reviewed the changes made to the plans: overhead lighting eliminated; sound study indicating noise can be controlled by using sound wa11s; pumps will be 18 feet below the ground on the business side of the property; from ground level the highest point of the project grill be 12 feet; the sound wall, rising with ground elevation, vrill be on the north, west, and south sides of the property. He indicated that traffic turn-afro and time is expected to be about one hour. P1r. Schneider revieved the specifications of the sound wall for the Commission indicating the highest point of the wall will be 20 feet higher than the surrounding residential property. Pls. Pat !,loodstock, 9070 Old Orchard Road, asked how many people vrere expected to use the facility in a day. She did not feel this vas the area for such a facility. Her main concern was the traffic impact on our "country" roads. She stated that they also have a serious litter problem with the 7-11 store in the area, and the traffic congestion because of the site is terrible. She noted that Pilpitas has a great deal more parking than is proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Kasolas asked Pls. !~oodstock if she had reviewed the revised plans. P~1s. !~loodstocl: replied she had not, but did not feel the use was appropriate for the area. h1r. Terry Barnum, 286 Sunnyoaks Avenue, stated he had visited the water slide facility in Milpitas and researched parking for the project. He felt this project's parking vas very inadequate and the only place for people to part: outside the lot would be on Sunnyoaks (which has limited parking available), Old Orchard Road, and Regina Lane. He stated that previous special events held at the skateboard park created a traffic problem. He also felt that the hours of a recreational facility in this area seriously limited his enjoyment of his home in the evenings and on vreel:ends. Commissioner Kasolas asked P•1r. Barnum if he had reviewed the revised plans. P~1r. Barnum stated he had not reviewed the plans. He indicated the noise from the existing skateboard park is not too bad at this time because it is going out of business. lie questioned the validity of such fad-type businesses. P•1s. Uloodstock asked if the Commission had received the petition signed by area residents against the ,rater slide. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the Commission had received the petition and asi;ed if each person signing the petition had had an opportunity to review the revised. plans. He asked if P•1s. !~loodstock knew if the signers had signed on the basis of the old plans or the revised plans. F1s. !4oodstock stated she t~ras not aurare of anyone reviewing plans. She stressed the point that the area residents did not want this type of facility in the area. She stated that the petition had been done in a rush, but she did not know vrhether the signers were aware of plans changes, since she had not circulated the petition. -13- P1o one else Urishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner P•9eyer, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas that the public hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. t°loti on Commissioner Kasolas moved that UP 79-27 be approved, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. The motion died for lack of a second. f~loti on It ~^~as moved by Commissioner Vierhus, and seconded by Commissioner hleyer that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending denial of UP 79-27. flicruecinn Commissioner Kasolas inquired if it ~^~as necessary for the Commission to make specific findings for denial, and he cautioned the Commission that the findings should reflect the testimony of evidence presented here. Acting City Rttorney Ducl:a^aorth concurred t~rith Commissioner Kasolas that the Commission must make specific findings. RESOLUTIOP•! ~~10. 1845 It was moved by Commissioner Vierhus that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1845 recommending denial of the application of P1r. ~~1i chael f~larti nez for a use permi t and approval of plans to alloy^r a water slide facility on property known as 2885 S. blinchester Boulevard in an Interim (Commercial) Zoning District, for the following reasons: (1) Proposed use`"is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; (2) Increased traffic hazards would be detrimental to residents in the area; and (3) Increased noise would be detrimental to neighborhood. ~~1otion seconded by Commissioner ~9eyer, and adopted tivith the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: P9eyer, Dickson, Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson PJOES: Commissioners: Kasolas ABSEf~JT: Commissioners: Pack ~9r. Stafford indicated to the Commission and the applicant that since this is an application for a use permit in an Interim 7_one it will go on to City Council automatically, and vrould not require an appeal by the applicant. *** ITEf~1S BROUGHT UP BY COf~9f1ISSI0fdEP,S Commissioner Kasolas reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee had reviev~ed the landscape plans for a P-D development at 49 Dot Avenue, as requested by the Commission, and that the Committee was quite pleased with tfie plans, and recommended approval. ADJOUR~lf9Ef~1T It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, seconded by Commissioner f~9eyer, and adopted unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. APPROVED: Carl E. Samuelson, Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. I<ee, Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis, Recorder